Study: Anger Toward God Linked to Poor Mental Health

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.
There could be many reasons for not believing, being angry is one of them.
We only have your word that you are the type of atheist who believes God, does not exist, and therefore have no reason to be angry.

Your constant presence in the religion forum say alot more than you are prepared to say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So now the question becomes, why are atheists frequenting in religion forum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a religious thread...in a science forum. Let's keep that clear.

The evidence shows (a quick search of U.S. health stats per state, correlated with a quick search of stats ofmost religious states), clearly shows that the most religious states have the poorest health stats.
This should be enough to rationally conclude that religious practice may be bad for your health (both mental and physical).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheists realize that reality sucks sometimes, and bad things happen. There's nothing to get mad at, unless you want to project a rant at the universe in general. Not to say that atheists don't get mad or upset at events in their life, but it's not at any particular supreme being, it's just at circumstances or causes.

They also don't bother with prayer...if anything they try to fix the problem or cope with it. Which is healthier than wishing it away.

 

Although atheism defines itself in terms of science and logic, the fact remains we also have the irrational atheist effect. Being angry at something that does not exist in your mind is not being rational. Being angry at religion, under the premise, you are trying to help those backward hicks recognie their wrong ways is also not irrational. If someone nags at you with anger, that is not about helping you. The person you pretend to help will feel insulted and will do the opposite. Rational can see that cause and effect. The anger is totally irrational since it is rages against what it says is not there, and is not about helping.

In line with the above study, depression is anger that is turned inward. If you have an avenue to vent this anger, this can be healthy for you, since it keeps the anger from going inward. Religion may indirectly provide an outlest for atheists to vent anger to avoid the direciton of depression. The anger is more for the mental health of the atheists.

The study says that even with all this anger venting to avoid depression, there are nevertheless extra statistical problems. This data would imply that the venting of anger against religion is not quite enough to divert all the anger from going inward. There is still a movement toward depression that can result in other instabilities and health issues.

The question becomes, where is this depression coming from, which seems to be very prevelant among the atheists? It is also prevelent in some of the radical Muslims. Is the atheist docritrine placing unnatural limits on natural human expression, so brain energy is imbalanced? The anger going inward is there to help providing energy for a memory swipe so the dam that has been placed can be broken. But the dam is rebuilt daily through the outward rage against religion and god. It is a loop.

There is actually a logical explanation. Dreams occur each night and therefore 1/3 of its time, the human brain is geared to the needs of the dream state instead of the conscious state. Religion appears to have a better connection to this 33% of the brain's energy budget.

The things of myth often occur in dreams. In some ancient and primitive cultures the dreams of the leaders become the way for all. There is a connection to that 1/3. If we treat the brain as a machine, so we can be objective to its operation, part of its natural maintenance procedure involves the dream machine. It is not about whether you believe in dreams or not, but rather it is about making use of all the brain output data when it comes to your orientation of reality.

Religion may appear irrational and will sometimes place effect before the cause, but if you ever had a dream, this is normal when the brain is in that 33 % state. The atheist may benefit by the psychology of dreams. This touches the missing brain aspect. Because it is science, it still allows them to maintain their no god orientation, if they so choose.

Maybe if the missing 33% is integrated, so there is no anger needed to break a wall, atheism will look more civilized, and not seem to be a angry irrational religion that calls itself rational and scientific, yet is not rational enough to see itself as the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I would rather be unhappy in reality than happy in dreamland.

Atheism as characterized by the new atheists isn't angry. This is a very strange perception on the part of religionists who seem to interpret any criticism of their stupid religion as anger. It's an illusion, probably generated by the hundreds of years in which it was considered evil even criminal to question the tenets of mainstream religion.

 

I bet that most of you theists think it's because we really do believe in a god deep down but are in some kind of denial that causes us to lash out at theism. But in actual fact it is you theists who are in the wrong place (this being a science forum) if all you want to do is directly or indirectly proselytize and/or evangelize. Almost every single thread becomes about that in one way or another, and it is against the forum rules. It is so commonplace that I often wonder whether or not the forum is even being actively moderated or if the mods have just decided to put up with an ongoing violation of the posting guidelines. In any case, my participation in that forum (and I have no doubt that I am speaking for many others) is a reaction. It's not like I seek out religious forums in an effort to convert everyone to atheism. I respond to people who are trying to convert everyone to theism in a science forum.

Seriously, how is this not obvious to everyone? We have people coming here dismissing good science in favour of ancient myth, making all manner of unsupportable claims and it is even common in the religion forum for people to talk about atheists going to hell. This is a science forum, and you ask why people challenge unsupported claims and hold the people who make them to account? What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

rav
are you angry?

 

Hehe

 

I'm not religious, but most atheists (as well as theists) seem angry to me.

I've spent a lot of time around animals, and my senses are fine-tuned to notice anxiety, anger.
I notice this in humans too. Words don't really matter; it is possible to notice anxiety and anger even if one doesn't understand the other person's language.

 

Being angry at God (or religion or theists) is a kind of fatalism. Fatalism is an outlook related to depression - and depression is a public concern.


People sometimes are or feel bullied by religion or theists. Being bullied is usually stressful, but religious bullying is a kind of bullying to which there is no ordinary defense.

 

I have no doubt that some atheists are angry. But it's important to understand that there is a difference between someone who occasionally engages in spirited and sometimes even heated discussion and someone who carries anger around with them every minute of the day. I am certainly not the latter, and occasionally the former (with respect to heated discussion that is; spirited discussion is basically my default setting).

It's also important to remember that we're all different people and we've all led different lives. For example, I was brought up in an environment where heated debate was commonplace. Even now I am surrounded by friends who love a good controversial discussion and it's only natural for sparks to fly occasionally. So it's normal for me to express indignation, irritation and even anger when I feel it but to subsequently let it go rather quickly. I rarely have anything brewing and festering below the surface. That would be a terrible way to live.

The bottom line is that you can't determine someone's baseline emotional state based on words alone. You really have to know them in person.

 

Tell that to the psychologists and psychiatrists and other researchers who believe it is perfectly reasonable to assess people on the grounds of a written test ... :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, well, I'm with you on that. But at least they are a little more comprehensive. My own problem with personality tests in particular stems from my inability to refrain from trying to divine the purpose behind each question. I just can't seem to not do it.

 

I think those tests are on principle misguided. This is because they suppose a person somehow exists objectively on their own, regardless of context, and would thus answer the same questions the same way - no matter who, where, when, for what purpose is asking them.

In reality, people may give even opposing answers to the same question, depending on the situation - and it still wouldn't necessarily be lying.


On topic - It's not clear how such a loaded topic as "anger at God" could be measured adequately by written tests. Anyone who has ever pondered theistic topics will know how loaded, ambiguous and changing over time these things are.

 

I think it has something to do with the religionists being angry at the atheists, and so assuming that the atheists must be angry back (rather than considering the possibility that the atheist simply thinks they are silly).

 

Even more on topic:

Why is this even in the health forum? :shrug:

 

God moves in mysterious ways?

I dunno, maybe I'll go start a topic on the religious forum about the fact that I haven't been healed miraculously, so the atheists are all correct...

 

Personally, in discussions on the argument from evil, I often use feigned hatred/disapproval of God for all the evil and suffering in the world for several purposes. 1) to demonstrate how a normal person would or should react to such evil actions or inaction by another; 2) to demonstrate that you won't be struck by lightning/absence of fear; and 3) to bring out the inconsistency of such a great guy being such a thoughtless, ineffectual prick in reality.

So if you don't "get it" you might get the erroneous idea that I'm a believer. No one has made that mistake yet.

 

i think that's entirely dishonest, and that you should be able to form your own arguments based on what you do believe, not what you pretend to believe.